UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1997 > Oct > Oct 13

Re: Solved Abduction cases?

From: Dennis <dstacy@texas.net> [Dennis Stacy]
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 15:29:51 -0500 (CDT)
Fwd Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 23:38:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Solved Abduction cases?

>From: clark@canby.mn.frontiercomm.net [Jerome Clark]
>Date: Sun, 12 Oct 1997 21:01:19 PDT
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>Subject: RE: UFO UpDate: Re: Solved Abduction cases?



>Your point seems to be that the phenomenon is so obviously a
>product of social pathology and ufological credulity that only fools
>think otherwise.  You've even suggested that a novelist with no known
>background in this subject -- Don DeLillo -- is the one to whom we
>ought to turn for wisdom in the matter.  A suggestion I find pretty
>strange, even as rabble-rousing -- or, as I hope, tongue-in-cheek --


You are sooo serious. You are also putting words in my mouth. But
if you don't like DeLillo, stick with John Fowler.

>Appelle's argument, which cannot be reduced to the
>short paragraph you quote, is that social, psychological, and
>other conventional theories about abductions do not explain the
>phenomenon; <snip>

I never implied or said that it could. I simply quoted a
statement that I agreed with. I also told everyone how to get a
copy of the article if they wanted it. Both partly by way of
pointing out that you mischaracterized Appelle's article in the
first place.

>Appelle writes, entirely reasonably, that the alternative explanation
>-- that abductions are event-level interactions with ETs -- requires
>far more and better evidence than we have seen to date.  It
>logically follows, I should think, that objective inquiry is a more
>logical next step than inflated rhetoric -- on either side -- and so is
>a modest acknowledgement that the abduction question is still wide
>open, not closed shut in a cell guarded day and night by psycho-
>socially inclined ufologists and debunkers.  Only one thing seems
>obvious at this moment: abductions are a phenomenon in search
>of an explanation. In the meantime, agnosticism, anyone?

>Jerry Clark

Agnosticism is fine with me, as long as it leads to the
investigation of all possibilities. If hoax, however, to cite but
one example, isn't in a particular investigator's lexicon, then
how agnostic (as opposed, say, to forgiving) is that

Appelle also lists ten research areas that need to be pursued in
depth, with which I wholly agree. The question here is how long
do we keep referring to abductionology as nascent, and using that
as a rationale to argue in ET's favor? As I said before in an
earlier post, implants and missing fetuses should be the "easy
parts" to document (compared, say, to passing through solid
matter and emerging unscathed on the other side), but it's been
32 years since the Hill case was made public and 16 going on 17
since "Missing Time" was published, and there is no compelling
documentation for either.

As someone once said of nocturnal lights, how many more abduction
cases do we need to collect (and publish)? It's not enough to
applaud Appelle as an example of the good UFO literature while at
the same time some of the leading lights in the field appear not
to have read (let alone heeded) him, and continue turning out
abduction potboilers. Simultaneously criticizing science for not
getting involved.

It's the application of agnosticism that troubles me. Is there
really anyone out there who seriously thinks the medical
profession wouldn't be intrigued by obvious cases of missing
fetuses? And that cases of same would routinely surface _without
regard to the UFO abduction literature at all_? Sonograms are as
routine nowadays as tongue depressors. If nothing else, a missing
fetus from one sonogram to another would prompt those involved to
contact social or law enforcement officials if not other medical
personnel at the very least. Even alleged female abductees making
this claim should have unambiguous medical documentation of their
status. Yet we routinely accept such stories -- "Oh, those
aliens! You haven't seen the half of it, doc." Or maybe the
doctor lost her records or moved away and couldn't be located by
the dedicated investigator intent on gathering evidence that
would document alien intervention. Or maybe ET stole 'em. But be
agnostic about such cases -- hey, it coulda happened -- and
pretty soon you can be agnostic about anything, including claims
made by leading UFO lights that something like 4 million
Americans alone have been abducted. That's a LOT of potential
missing fetuses (and/or implants) in my book. (And even a very
small percentage would still be a very large lot.) Could we see
some documentation for just one?


Search for other documents from or mentioning: dstacy | clark

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com